Why aren’t Catholic Churches as ornate as Orthodox/Byzantine churches?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Italia19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Italia19

Guest
I really wish that Roman Catholic Churches were more ornate. Don’t get me wrong, many of the older ones certainly are and they are beautiful. But newer churches are generally more modern and less decorated, whereas newer Orthodox Churches always use traditional designs and are very ornate on the inside. I feel like if my church were more beautiful on the inside with icons and statues it would deepen my spirituality.

What do you guys think?
 
The false ‘spirit’ of Vatican II a.k.a the hermeneutic of rupture.
 
Money.

Ornateness costs lots of money.

And many Catholics would rather see the money spent on educational materials, Bible studies, and missions, the diocesan projects, youth outreaches and vocations education, upgrading the computer system in the parish offices, personnel (fair wages), the parish school, maintenance of the facilities (leaky toilets, cleaning, etc.), the music (pipe organ?), and especially parish and diocesan programs that help the poor, the disenfranchised, the suffering, the prisoners, the homeless, and the sick and dying.

If people want ornate design in addition to all these other worthwhile expenditures, then they should ante up!
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
Money.

Ornateness costs lots of money.
Click to expand...
I know they are out there because there have been some magnificent churches build in the last few years, but I wonder how difficult it is to find an architect who has the vision to design an ornate church? It’s all part of the expense.
 
Last edited:
Italia19 said:
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about Roman Catholic Churches, but in Byzantine Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Churches, everything about the layout of the church building to the icons are catechetical.

ZP
 
I was referring to the Byzantine rite, which is used in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. I am aware there are Byzantine rite catholics. In fact I went to a Byzantine-Rite Ruthenian Catholic Church on sunday for divine liturgy, which is partly what inspired this question.
 
Peeps said:
If people want ornate design in addition to all these other worthwhile expenditures, then they should ante up!
Click to expand...
Meh… often times it seems that the wealthiest parishes (suburbs) are often the most spartan and ugly. I think it’s more of an attitude of utilitarianism that has permeated western culture. People today tend to value the practical (parish school) over the transcendental (beautiful church, beautiful music, etc.). The Eastern Churches, which are often small and poor, manage to have beautiful churches.
 
If your interested:


Maybe the first 10-15 minutes the priest is explaining the layout of the Church. It’s not to in depth but gives a nice overview.

ZP
 
SaintMartin said:
Vatican II
Click to expand...
2a779feb62771ea26a7c84575f1b1ec9ac2b541a.gif
 
Are you saying that the parish schools are less important than the decor of the church building?
 
No, I think both are important. I’m just saying that people often only see the practical and don’t realize the importance of the transcendental.
 
I wholeheartedly agree. God deserves all the pomp, plus more.
 
For better or worse, the Latin West has always been more flexible when it comes to church architecture and art. The East has stricter rules for iconography, church layout, etc. So depending on the era, Latin/Roman churches may be more or less sumptuous than those in the East. However, overall, Latin churches have been comparatively more simple.

What Vatican II said on the subject can be seen starting at Chapter VII (paragraph 122) here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

It’s pretty general.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot has to do with the trends in society that influence the church architecture and decorations like statues and paintings.
 
Ok, thank you. I only made the statement because there’s sometimes a tendency here for Byzantine Catholics to be lumped in with the Orthodox (or at the worst, sometimes folks don’t know that there actually are Byzantine Catholics).
 
And some people find “transcendental beauty” in a plain brick wall, or a single icon.

And some people are uncomfortable with over-the-top décor.

I believe that God likes BOTH types of church décor–simple and complex. He created prairies and mountains, after all. If you’ve driven in Illinois, you’ll see hundreds of miles of very flat corn and soybean fields, and some people cannot see the beauty in this compared to the mountains of Colorado. But then there are folks like me who feel “closed in” by the mountains and prefer the endless fertile flatlands. And like I said, God made both.
 
Peeps said:
If you’ve driven in Illinois, you’ll see hundreds of miles of very flat corn and soybean fields, and some people cannot see the beauty in this compared to the mountains of Colorado. But then there are folks like me who feel “closed in” by the mountains and prefer the endless fertile flatlands. And like I said, God made both.
Click to expand...
As someone who’s been to Illinois many times and loves the state, I know exactly what you’re talking about. I love the smell of corn in the morning!
 
Last edited:
Some of them are. Also in EO many of the decorations aren’t decorations they are imposed iconic tradition. The CC chose to be more lax with strict iconography and that may be due to the Protestant revolution, trying to appease the people who felt all the icons and statues were too expensive while Christ was poor. The East only encountered Protestantism later on when they already knew the fruits of it and that fighting back (in terms of ideas) was the only solution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top